• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Man accused of killing abortion doc says he's being 'treated like a criminal'

Regardless of the particulars of his guilt or innocence regarding the alleged crime of murder, the direct consequence of his being caught is his incarceration.

At this moment, he has not been tried and is therefore presumptively innocent in the eyes of the law.

He is incarcerated. It is common to view such deprivation of personal liberty as a punitive measure. Thus he is being punished.

Why is he being punished? He is not being punished for any crime--by operation of law, that cannot happen until his guilt is established at trial, which has not happened. The sole remaining reason for his current punishment is that he was apprehended by the police.

He is being punished for being apprehended. Ergo, he was wrong to get caught.

Yes, I know how the justice system works. Why do you insist on being obtuse? :roll:

I guess I'll just have to ask you directly: If he is found guilty, do you find his actions objectionable?
 
Read her quote without the vile hate goggles you have for me.
Talloulou's own words

She was agreeing with his assertion that there was lots of corruption in the government protecting Tiller.
 
No, she certainly did not. Please point me to where she stated or implied she found shooting Tiller to be acceptable.

I'm waiting.
What else does "agreeing" with a terrorist imply in your mind?
 
I guess I'll just have to ask you directly: If he is found guilty, do you find his actions objectionable?
Yes, I do.

Regardless of whom may or may not be guilty of the act, the killing of Tiller was a most objectionable act done in a most objectionable way.
 
Regardless of the particulars of his guilt or innocence regarding the alleged crime of murder, the direct consequence of his being caught is his incarceration.

At this moment, he has not been tried and is therefore presumptively innocent in the eyes of the law.

He is incarcerated. It is common to view such deprivation of personal liberty as a punitive measure. Thus he is being punished.

Why is he being punished? He is not being punished for any crime--by operation of law, that cannot happen until his guilt is established at trial, which has not happened. The sole remaining reason for his current punishment is that he was apprehended by the police.

He is being punished for being apprehended. Ergo, he was wrong to get caught.

So this is how a Celtic Lord squirms...

Did you get this way with D&D rules too? "You rolled the wrong die, ergo the roll doesn't count and I live another day."

First of all, 'getting caught', he didn't do this, it was done to him. (Don't go Freudian on me)

But prior to being apprehended while trying to flee the state... Were there any other no-no's mr Roeder committed that morning?(presumption of innocence aside)
 
What else does "agreeing" with a terrorist imply in your mind?

Uh, derrr. Gee, I dunno...maybe about the finer point of government corruption shielding Tiller. You know...what she specifically mentioned in her post? :roll:
 
Yes, I do.

Regardless of whom may or may not be guilty of the act, the killing of Tiller was a most objectionable act done in a most objectionable way.

Which way would you find less objectionable?
 
Last edited:
Yes, I do.

Regardless of whom may or may not be guilty of the act, the killing of Tiller was a most objectionable act done in a most objectionable way.

Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. Some people's posts give off a rather ambiguous message and it's hard to tell whether they really do condemn his actions or not.
 
Which way would find less objectionable?
I would consider shooting him in the privacy of his own home to be less objectionable to shooting him in a church.
 
She was agreeing with his assertion that there was lots of corruption in the government protecting Tiller.
The corruption that the psychopath moron is accusing is that the government is corrupt for holding him and treating him as a criminal, he is unapologetic for his heinus act.

As for any corruption in favor of Tiller, once again, KS is as red a state as it gets. Tiller had performed the operation legally in KS for the last 30+ years. All the legal prosecutions were against Tiller and not a single prosecution wasn't even able to result in an indictment much less a guilty verdict.
His questioning in early 2000's was completely politically motivated by OR and other extreemist activists and there was no evidence of any wrong doing whatsoever. So what corruption?
 
Thank you. That's all I wanted to know. Some people's posts give off a rather ambiguous message and it's hard to tell whether they really do condemn his actions or not.

I will be perfectly clear. I find what the shooter did to be deplorable and deserving of the fullest penalty of the law.

I am not the least bit upset that Tiller won't be performing anymore baby murders.
 
I would consider shooting him in the privacy of his own home to be less objectionable to shooting him in a church.

Glad we got that straight.

Getting caught, and the church - Bad.

The shooting, like smoking, should be done the privacy one's own home. Or the home of one's victim.
 
The corruption that the psychopath moron is accusing is that the government is corrupt for holding him and treating him as a criminal, he is unapologetic for his heinus act.

As for any corruption in favor of Tiller, once again, KS is as red a state as it gets. Tiller had performed the operation legally in KS for the last 30+ years. All the legal prosecutions were against Tiller and not a single prosecution wasn't even able to result in an indictment much less a guilty verdict.
His questioning in early 2000's was completely politically motivated by OR and other extreemist activists and there was no evidence of any wrong doing whatsoever. So what corruption?

You're going to have to realize that a lot of people, while condoning his murder, don't support Tiller's actions and never have. Why would they start just because he was killed? A lot of people share the belief that he was being protected by corruption in the government. Why should that bother you? If you are secure enough in your own beliefs about it, why should you care what other people think?
 
Uh, derrr. Gee, I dunno...maybe about the finer point of government corruption shielding Tiller. You know...what she specifically mentioned in her post? :roll:
Oh right, because when a terrorist claims the government is corrupt to protect Tiller but not him that must be true right?
Again, as I've said it's interesting that this form of terroism, or in this case, terror sympathy is permissible.
 
The shooting, like smoking, should be done the privacy one's own home. Or the home of one's victim.
Even you must agree that such would be less distressing to the general public.
 
I made no comment on that point, now did I?
I've simply asked you to clarify what your point is. So again, is getting caught the only wrong he committed?
 
I've simply asked you to clarify what your point is. So again, is getting caught the only wrong he committed?
I do not know.
 
I will be perfectly clear. I find what the shooter did to be deplorable and deserving of the fullest penalty of the law.

I am not the least bit upset that Tiller won't be performing anymore baby murders.

Exactly, and nobody (except maybe for jfuh) is saying that people have to change their stance on this man just because he was murdered.
 
Oh right, because when a terrorist claims the government is corrupt to protect Tiller but not him that must be true right?
Again, as I've said it's interesting that this form of terroism, or in this case, terror sympathy is permissible.

Whether the corruption is actually there or not is irrelevant to your blatant falsehood and attempt to paint talloulou as a terror sympathizer over her post. She did not sypathize with the terrorism; she simply affirmed her belief that there was corruption shielding Tiller.

But I do understand the need for the weak-minded to resort to boorish tactics like vilification when their arguments fall short on logic so I will overlook your attempt at such from here on.
 
Exactly, and nobody (except maybe for jfuh) is saying that people have to change their stance on this man just because he was murdered.

And just to be clear, I am very, very prochoice.
 
What else does "agreeing" with a terrorist imply in your mind?

I agree a corrupt government in Kansas buffered Tiller from the law. I believe a corrupt governor in exchange for campaign funding vetoed a law that passed the Kansas state legislator. I also believe a corrupt DA fired a state prosecutor so he could replace him with someone who was more favorable to the agenda of continuing to let Tiller skirt the law.

I believe all that. So does the guy who killed Tiller. In that respect him and I are in agreement.

Would I have killed Dr. Tiller myself? No.

Would I have advocated that someone else should kill him? No.

Do I think killing him was the right thing to do? No.

Do I think the guy in jail should not be treated like a criminal? No.

Did I hum ding dong the witch is dead upon hearing of Tiller's death? Yep.

Do I think Tiller was a monster? Yep.

I won't apologize for that.

In my mind Tiller is no more worthy of my tears or concern than a serial killer.

I would have preferred the law deal with Tiller in a lawful manner but I can't say I'm upset some whacko took him out. If a guy is gonna grab a gun and kill someone - Tiller was a good choice.
 
lolz.

I do agree with him though. There was lots of government corruption protecting Tiller from the law.

jfuh, do you not see my lolz in my original post? That is in reference to the guy being surprised he is being treated like a criminal.
 
I would have preferred the law deal with Tiller in a lawful manner but I can't say I'm upset some whacko took him out. If a guy is gonna grab a gun and kill someone - Tiller was a good choice.

Exactly. As far as Tiller's death as a stand alone issue, my sympathy lies with the maggots that have to share a bed with the monster now.
 
Even you must agree that such would be less distressing to the general public.

I see, it is in the public's best interest to only commit murder where there are no witnesses. I get it.

"Look your Honor, we were miles outta town when I shot the guy in the skull... It's like when a tree falls in the woods...No harm, no fowl. If I hadn't kept his head in my freezer, nobody would be the wiser. So how about a little leniency over here?!"

You are one hell of a legal scholar... Just like Dax Shepard in Idiocracy.
 
Back
Top Bottom